November 29, 2009

A few days ago a friend informed me an in-law on her mother’s side had contracted Guillain Barre syndrome after receiving the H1N1 vaccine. To make matters worse the patient in the hospital bed next to her had the same story.

Yet the World Health Organisation claims, “To date, fewer than ten suspected cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome have been reported in people who have received vaccine.”

With 6.6 billion people in the world, what do you think are the odds of me having a link to a fifth of the victims and two of them lying side-by-side in a single Australian hospital?

In seven months, how many people do I know who have contracted the swine flu? Adding a friend’s mother, it brings the total to:

Swine flu: 10 and 1 incorrectly diagnosed

Complications: Zero

Hospitalizations: Zero

Deaths: Zero

In the two months since vaccination began, how many people do I know who have been vaccinated against swine flu? Four are added this month: a co-worker and her mother and the above mentioned women, bringing the total to:

Vaccinated: 13

Complications: 6

Hospitalizations: 4

Deaths: Zero

No wonder I don’t believe the spin!

Why should you believe my story? After all I’m just another faceless unknown from the internet adding to a growing number of unsubstantiated claims. The simple answer is DON’T.

If there is one point I’d like to make through this blog it would be: use your personal experience to form questions and then get out there and find answers.

I’m simply providing information as I stumble upon it that raises questions about the integrity of the sources we’ve been conditioned to regard as credible and trustworthy.

Right now those sources are telling us it is reasonable to ask normal healthy people to risk hospitalisation or a paralysing disease in an attempt to prevent a few days in bed with the flu. That in itself should raise even more questions. If you haven’t started looking for answers now is the time to begin as what appears to be waiting in the wings is certainly not pretty.

THREE Australian experts are making waves in the medical community with a report suggesting swine flu may have developed because of a lab error in making vaccines.

“It could have happened in a lab where somebody became affected and then travelled with it,” virologist Dr Adrian Gibbs said yesterday.

Conjuring up a vision of Frankenstein’s fictional monster fleeing the laboratory, he added: “Things do get out of labs and this has to be explored. There needs to be more research done in this area.

“At the moment there is no way of distinguishing where swine flu has come from.”

The research, published in the Virology Journal on Tuesday, was compiled by two former researchers at the Australian National University – Dr Gibbs and programmer John S. Armstrong.

Dr Jean Downie, once the head of HIV research at Westmead Hospital, was also involved.

The article claimed the swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus that appeared in Mexico in April has at least three parent genes which originated in the US, Europe and Asia.

“The three parents of the virus may have been assembled in one place by natural means, such as by migrating birds, however the consistent link with pig viruses suggests that human activity was involved,” the research found.

Within two days of them publishing their findings there were more than 16,000 downloads of the article.

“What we wanted to do was instigate debate about this again because we still don’t know the source of this virus,” Dr Gibbs said.

The research suggested more tests be done on laboratories “which share and propagate a range of swine influenza viruses”.

It said that if the virus was generated by laboratory activity it would explain why it had “escaped surveillance for over a decade”.

Dr Gibbs said it was not the first time lab errors had been made, with evidence foot and mouth disease in England had been born out of a lab mistake and circumstantial evidence that Spanish influenza in 1918 and Asian influenza in 1957 reappeared decades later because of mistakes.

“Measures to restore confidence include establishing an international framework co-ordinating surveillance, research and commercial work with this virus and a registry of all influenza isolates held for research and vaccine production,” the report concluded.

November 19, 2009

The vaccine in question is just one of many on the market for swine flu but you’ll find very similar comments on all of the package inserts. Make sure you read the relevant insert before making your decision about the vaccine.

November 12, 2009

It’s not an isolated case. The connections and vested interest in pharmaceuticals is widespread: in the media, government, science, advisory and regulatory bodies, academia…even consumer advocacy groups. When you start finding the connections and joining the dots you stop trusting the spin.

They then qualify this statement, implying the vaccines are safe, “Data from pregnant women vaccinated with different inactivated non-adjuvanted seasonal seasonal vaccines do not suggest malformations or fetal or neonatal toxicity”

However neither of the vaccines in question is non-adjuvanted. Both clearly list adjuvants (including the highly controversial squalene) in their ingredients:

FocetriaAdjuvant MF59C.1 containing:
squalene 9.75 milligrams
polysorbate 80 1.175 milligrams
sorbitan trioleate 1.175 milligrams
Despite this fact the EMA documents states, “The use of Pandemrix may be considered during pregnancy if this is thought to be necessary, taking into account official recommendations.”

So why has the WHO, the offical body making the recommendations, chosen to recommend an untested, adjuvanted vaccine for pregnant women?

WHO claims infected pregnant women are 10 times more likely to require hospitalization in intensive care units than infected persons in the general population, and 7% to 10% of hospitalized cases are women in their second or third trimester of pregnancy.

To support the recommendation of the vaccines for pregnant women WHO quite definitely states, “The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.” This is an outrageous statement given no comparative vaccine has been tested on pregnant women and therefore no data is available with which to evaluate the risks!*

November 8, 2009

I’ve been following the swine flu since it erupted in April and started a blog in exasperation at not having a wider forum to share the information I’ve accumulated. As unbelievable as it sounds, we are in the midst of what appears to be an elaborate deception and a potentially shocking crime against humanity. Jumping in at the middle, as I have, I’m left trying to share information with readers without having provided the back story, which is crucial to understanding what is happening.

I’ve been trying to find a concise, easy to follow, summary of the swine flu timeline that has some degree of credibility. Unfortunately too many sources are easily dismissed as conspiracy theories, even though their content is sound, because of the alarmist manner in which they are presented. Fair enough I just want facts too.

Finally I think I may have found that perfect summary in the most unlikely of places. Sister Theresa Forcades, a Benedictine nun – bear with me I know a nun sounds like a strange source – Dr Forcades is a qualified physician, who specialised in internal medicine and has a PhD in Public Health from Barcelona University. She dispenses with hype and just gives the bare facts.

She has produced a series of 6 videos, each about 10 minutes long. If you are undecided about the vaccine I can only implore you to invest at least this one hour in the decision-making process. Given the content it’s valuable viewing even for those who have decided against the vaccine.

Unfortunately the videos are in Spanish, with English subtitles. I had to turn off the sound to watch them as it was extremely distracting. You can find the first one below. I’ve provided a summary for those who find the subtitles too distracting to watch. [Please note. Text in square brackets and highlights are my additions.]

Part 1

She explains the basic science of seasonal flu viruses in a few lines.

H1N1 is not a new strain of virus.

H1N1 was responsible for the 1918 flu and stayed in circulation until 1957 when it disappeared.

According to an article on the history of viruses published last month in NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) H1N1 reemerged in 1977 when it wasre-synthesised in a lab from the body of an Inuit woman who had died of the 1918 flu.

Since 1977 the H1N1 has once again been part of the seasonal flu pool of viruses.

H1N1 is not new. The viral strain (S-01v) is new.

The first two cases of 2009 AH1N1 (swine flu) were diagnosed on 17th April 2009 in California

According to the World Health Organisation, between 17/4/09 and 15/9/09 there were 137 deaths in Europe and 3559 deaths worldwide from swine flu. This included the Southern Hemisphere’s winter flu season. [Deaths world-wide had increased to just under 5000 at the end of October]

Swine flu has a lower mortality rate than normal seasonal flu, which she states had been confirmed by at least two prestigious doctors: Dr J Dupre of the National Medical Ethics Committee in France and Dr Rodriguez Sendin, president of the General Spanish Medical Associations.

People over 60 have a 33% immunity against the new strain. [It is interesting to note in CSL’s preliminary report on their Panvax swine flu vaccine stated 31.7% of subjects in their study had pre-existing antibodies to 2009 H1N1 and they admit to being surprised to find similar base line antibodies in the younger group. i.e. almost a third of the adult population have adequate antibody protection against this current virus.]

She then dispenses with the scientific part and then begins her introduction to two serious irregularities which to date have remained unclarified

First:

Jane Burgermeister, an Austrian journalist, pressed bio-terrorism and attempted mass murder charges, against the World Health Organisation, The United Nations, some government officials and CEOs of pharmaceutical companies

She did this after the following information emerged (to be continued in second video clip):

At the end of January 2009 [I thought it was February]Baxter laboratories, a major US pharmaceutical company, sent 72 kilos of seasonal flu vaccination material from their subsidiary company in via four neighbouring countries (Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany) to 16 laboratories. [Fourth country not mentioned. Details would be available from the summary section at Jane Burgermeister’s website]

This material was designated for seasonal flu vaccines. She states she hasn’t worked out how many doses but it is in the thousands.

A lab technician in the Czech Republic Bio Test Laboratories tested the vaccine material on ferrets. He was qualified to test but not obliged to do so [as the material was already assumed tested and deemed safe for distribution.] All the ferrets died. He raised the alarm. [Keep in mind this vaccine material was destined for the seasonal flu vaccine.]

They then began checks to see what the material from Baxter laboratories contained

November 7, 2009

CONNECTICUT Attorney-General Richard Blumenthal is probing allegations of price-fixing and preferential treatment in the distribution of the seasonal flu vaccine.

Mr Blumenthal yesterday said in a statement that he had sent letters to four manufacturers and nine distributors of the flu vaccine, seeking information on the prices they charge and the rationale used to allocate supplies.

The state A-G also wants details on what steps may be taken to assure equitable distribution of limited vaccine supplies.

The manufacturers include units of GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca and CSL.
“I am asking vaccine makers and distributors to detail prices, supply levels and distribution methods, and criteria to guard against favouritism and gouging,” Mr Blumenthal said.

“I will fight to assure no one makes a killing off the seasonal flu vaccine shortage – potentially endangering seniors and the sick – and everyone who needs a shot gets one.”

Mr Blumenthal said his office had received complaints of seasonal flu vaccines being offered at many times the normal price – as much as $US100 a dose, or higher – and preferential treatment in distribution to large retailers.